4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Sevastopil.
5.  At the material time the applicant worked as the supervisor of the technical division (начальник технического отдела) at the Navy Communication Devices Repair Plant (“the Company,” “771 Ремонтный завод средств связи Черноморского флота” военной части №31060)[1] belonging to the Government of the Russian Federation and located in Sevastopil, Ukraine.
6.  On 16 January 1992 the applicant was dismissed for his failure to meet the requirements of his post.
7.  On 24 January 1992 he instituted civil proceedings in the Nakhimovskyy District Court of Sevastopil (“the District Court”; Нахімовський районний суд м. Севастополя), seeking his reinstatement and compensation for the loss of income (“the reinstatement proceedings”).
8.  On 27 April 1992 the applicant instituted additional civil proceedings in the same court, alleging that the Company had been miscalculating his monthly salary between October 1991 and January 1992 (“the salary proceedings”).
9.  On 29 July 1992 the Crimean Regional Court (Кримський обласний суд) gave the final judgment in the reinstatement proceedings ordering the applicant's reinstatement and awarding him 3,134.20 karbovantsi[2] in compensation.
10.  On 7 April 1993, the Crimean Regional Court gave the final judgment in the salary proceedings finding for the applicant and recalculating the salary due to him for the months of October 1991 – January 1992.
11.  In view of the salary recalculation, the reinstatement proceedings were subsequently re-opened. On 10 June 1993 the compensation due to the applicant was increased to 10,960.52 karbovantsi[3]. On 21 July 1993 the Crimean Regional Court upheld this judgment and it became final.
12.  On 28 April 1999 the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of 10 June and 21 July 1993 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration, following a protest, instituted by the Deputy President of the Supreme Court upon the request of the applicant, who sought higher compensation for the loss of income.
13.  On 20 April 2001 the District Court rejected the applicant's claims for higher compensation.
14.  On 5 June 2001 the Sevastopil City Court (“the City Court”; Севастопольський міський суд) quashed this judgment on appeal in cassation and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.
15.  On 21 January 2002 the District Court found that the proper amount of compensation due to the applicant was 4,922.40 karbovantsi[4], but ordered not to pay this sum to the applicant as the Company had already paid the award fixed by the quashed judgment of 10 June 1993.
16.  On 16 April 2002 the City Court quashed this judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. The applicant appealed in cassation against this ruling, contending that the City Court should have decided the merits instead of remitting the case for a fresh consideration.
17.  On 4 September 2002 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal in cassation against the ruling of 16 April 2002.
18.  On 13 March 2003 the applicant complained to the President of the District Court about lack of action in his case.
19.  On 15 April 2003 the District Court notified the applicant that his case had been mistakenly transferred to the finished cases archive.
20.  On 28 May 2004 the District Court ruled against the applicant.
21.  On 11 November 2004 the City Court quashed this judgment and awarded the applicant 8.21 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH)[5].
22.  On 26 June 2006 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal in cassation.
23.  In October-December 1995 the Company ordered its employees to work part-time in view of the Company's financial hardships.
24.  In January 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings challenging the legitimacy of this order and seeking compensation for his “involuntary absence” from work.
25.  On 20 February 1997 the Nakhimovskyy District Court rejected the applicant's claims.
26.  On 18 March 1997 the Sevastopil City Court upheld this judgment on appeal in cassation and it became final.
27.  On 17 July 1998 Presidium of the City Court quashed the decisions of 20 February and 18 March 1997 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration, following a protest of the Deputy President of the Supreme Court.
28.  On 2 April 1999 the District Court allowed the applicant's claims and awarded him UAH 297[6].
29.  On 11 May 1999 the City Court upheld this decision on appeal in cassation and it became final.
30.  On 19 January 2000 the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of 2 April and 11 May 1999 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration, following a protest, instituted by its Deputy President.
31.  On 2 March 2004 the District Court partly allowed the applicant's claims and awarded him UAH 194.62[7]. The Company appealed.
32.  On 20 June 2004 the City Court returned the case-file to the District Court, having instructed it to finalize the trial record and to order an immediate payment of a certain amount of the award.
33.  On 20 July 2004 the District Court ordered the immediate payment of UAH 68.63[8]. Both parties appealed.
34.  On 16 December 2004 the City Court quashed the judgments of 2 March 2004 and 20 July 2004 and rejected the applicant's claims as unsubstantiated. The applicant appealed in cassation.
35.  On 28 December 2005 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal in cassation.